About the Political Compass


In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the
traditional left-right line.

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far
as it goes.
We can show, for example, Stalin,
Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled
economy, on the hard left. Socialists
like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy
a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to
the right, but further right still would be
someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in
politics. That's the one that the mere left-right
scale doesn't adequately address.
So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to
extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors
for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you
can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more
important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme
value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves
state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the
extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with
no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in
Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing
for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore
authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish
someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than
social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger,
even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite
of fascism is not communism
but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism
( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme
deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take
into account the neo-liberal
"anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and
America's Libertarian Party,
which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions
on most social issues.
Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and
order positions, and are more
economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely
libertarian as they are extremely right wing.
On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of
anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism)
belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily
"right wing", with the examples of
Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale,
was not an extreme right-winger.
His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of
today's Labour parties.
If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics,
the two diehard
authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs

U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region.
Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest.
These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

How You Can Help Us

A great deal of effort lies behind the development of The Political Compass, and the realisation of it in practical form. It has occasionally come to our attention that other sites have tried to exploit our work by copying it, adopting our name, or linking to us in a dishonest fashion.

If you should come across any such sites, please let us know so that we can take appropriate action.

A few critics believe that we should blow with prevailing political winds and narrow the actual parameters. Please see our
FAQ 21.

We have consistently resisted many approaches for banner and pop-up ads or permanent corporate sponsorship because of the potential compromises that such arrangements almost inevitably entail. However if you like The Political Compass enough to help us, please leave a tip below: